This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Few days off
I will offline for few days, just to let you know regarding the mediation. Thanks you for all your helpTaprobanus 21:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Based on the agreements and disagreements we may still have edit warring on Chemmani mass grave the article. If that is so should we take itto arbitration ? Taprobanus 19:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee rarely hears cases regarding content disputes and focuses instead on actions of editors. However, persistent edit warring is conduct which the committee may hear. If that does occur, depending on the severity of the conduct, anyone can seek a request for arbitration. -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of 2007 London car bombs. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. -- Catchi? 20:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Islam
I take your point - it's one of those very few "special cases", and I totally agree here - Alison☺ 02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC) (and I'm a staunch "unprotectionist", as you know!)
Sock
I see, perhaps a different banned user. Though, having reviewed the histories, several His excellency socks were earlier misidentified as those of the editor in the Hklekar case upon the same subject-related basis: there is actually no evidence that the other editor has ever returned to this battle. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/His excellency for what we are dealing with (lest we find peace now that DavidYork71 appears to have given up.) Please do not respond on my talk page.Proabivouac 06:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI
User:Arrow740 after his first block by User:Durova said: [1]. He classifies users (and himself) according to their religion. --Aminz 23:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
That's an overstatement. -- tariqabjotu 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Which one? Arrow's attitude towards Islam is clear: [2], [3], [4] “Muslim societies are backward because of Islam” --Aminz 00:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
The classification piece was an overstatement. I'm not sure what reaction you're expecting to those three links. -- tariqabjotu 00:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I posted this link in relation to Arrow's idea that he was blocked because of religous reasons. My second post was a misunderstanding of your reply. Anyways, have good times. --Aminz 06:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Arrow should never have been blocked and your decision to do so (and refusal to unblock) is in my opinion poor use of your administrative powers. Talmage 05:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've amended the featured article section to exclude Islam, because it's very volatile (ANI posts suggest a future wheel war) on the grounds of WP:IAR. What should be done next with the article? Full-protection? Evilclown93(talk) 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
That seemed like a good idea, but I would probably revert that change. Within the next ten minutes, someone's going to say, "wait a second, wasn't Islam on the Main Page yesterday?" Ignoring all rules in highly-visible locations tend to lead to that... I personally didn't think the protection on the article was a big deal. -- tariqabjotu 00:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Review
Hi Tariq,
Perhaps you could take a look at this, which seems quite odd to me (similar to the event a few days back). Let me know what you think, TewfikTalk 19:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting pattern
04:32, 21 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Itaqallah (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (4RR actually)
03:45, 27 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Halaqah (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (3rr AFrican slave trade)
05:15, 27 June 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Tigeroo (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation: Battle of Khaybar)
03:23, 2 July 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Dashes (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours (Three-revert rule violation: on Islam)
02:21, 4 July 2007 Blnguyen (Talk | contribs) blocked "Aminz (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Three-revert rule violation: Islam)
These are Blnguyen's five latest blocks for 3RR. He hasn't blocked anyone else for the same offense since May 9th. Do you notice a pattern? What can you do about it? I've brought this to you because you may not be a Muslim anymore, but you do know what it feels like. Peace. Lovegroup 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
By sheer coincidence, I was bringing up something similar with Blnguyen while you were posting this. -- tariqabjotu 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your concern for a blocked editor, Aminz, in that you blocked my previous account thinking that it was him. Please note that I am not Aminz, nor am I any editor among these logs. If you have a friend among the people who have checkuser capability, feel absolutely free to have them confirm that fact. You posted that comment so quickly to his talk page that I wondered whether you had done so completely on your own accord, and I applaud you for noticing it by yourself. But you should also be aware that the administrator you're dealing with is in a position of trust - the ArbCom, the group that must supposedly be absolutely neutral. Posting this on his talk page will, in the end, have no effect at all. And it surprises me that you also had said "I'm not saying you're biased (no, I'm not even being facetious about that; I don't think you are." Because when one asks oneself "what are the chances of all this happening by chance, i.e. complete coincidence?" the answer is obvious: there is no chance at all. Wa Alaikum Assalam. P.S.: please leave this account unblocked. Lovegroup5 04:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There are other explanations besides a bias against Muslims. -- tariqabjotu 04:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Well if you're saying that the other explanation is that this administrator is being influenced by an editor with zealous anti-Islamic/anti-Muslim opinions, that does not bode quite well for an arbitrator either. Lovegroup 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Let him explain. -- tariqabjotu 04:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
They are all violations. There's nothing to explain. The real issue is why tariqabjotu declined to block two of these editors; instead, he choose to block me when I hadn't violated 3RR. Perhaps when other admins don't want to involve themselves in this highly acrimonious area of wikipedia, B1nguyen does the right thing. Arrow740 07:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I decided against bringing up tariqabjotu's behavior after he blocked me for 3RR when I hadn't violated it. Now that he has brought it up, I have to say that it is hypocritical for the person who actually has been choosing to use or not to use his tools for reasons outside of policy to accuse someone who actually follows the policy of wrong-doing. Arrow740 07:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
You clearly did not even read what I wrote to Blnguyen (and perhaps not even his response). Blocking for fewer than four reverts in twenty-four hours is entirely within the bounds of policy (as noted in the intro for WP:3RR), particularly when the editor has made not four, but five reverts in twenty-six hours. Your suggestion that After Midnight was also biased because he allegedly has had conflict with another user who agreed with you on something is just an excuse. You seem bitter about the block, and unfortunately don't believe you did anything wrong, and so you are searching for a way to dismiss my actions, and the actions of After Midnight, as bias rather than a valid block that simply did not result from straight revert counting. Blnguyen said he prefers straight revert counting when it comes to religious and ethnic articles; I and After Midnight, on the other hand, apparently are willing to deviate. That does not mean Blnguyen is within policy and I am not; it means he took a different approach than me – one I find puzzling, and don't agree with, because he was okay with blocking Dashes and not okay with blocking you (but again, that, I presume, comes from straight revert counting). Your inability to see this as a difference of opinion on 3RR blocks is disheartening, but not a big deal to me. You appear to have made up your mind that I have some bias against you, using selective evidence to support your position and ignoring contrary evidence. Unlike you, I was merely asking Blnguyen for an explanation for the surprising recent series of events, not convicting him of bias without hearing or asking for his thoughts. So, if you have a further issue with this, bring it up to WP:ANI or WP:COIN, where I will gladly sink your argument. Otherwise – and I believe this is the better route – you should drop this issue and quit taunting me with your allegations. -- tariqabjotu 17:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
(removing indent) I'm not saying you should be desysoped for blocking me. But perhaps you should rethink your blocking strategy. The fact is that you declined to block two Muslims who had violated 3RR and chose to block someone like me who hadn't (using two of my three reverts on a likely sock who was doing nothing but removing sourced content on main page day), then didn't block another Muslim, Aminz, who was also at 3R and being disuptive on top of that. As I said, I planned to let sleeping dogs lie until your posts yesterday. Arrow740 19:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
When I respond to 3RR reports, I don't categorize people based on their religion. Additionally, realize that I am under no obligation to respond to every 3RR request; it's not like that's my job. So, I'm not sure where you're getting two Muslims from (one is obviously Itaqallah, although his religion had no bearing on my response to the report) and I'm not sure why you're holding the Aminz report against me. I never suggested that you wanted me desyopped; I only said you're taunting me with allegations based on questionable evidence (and you're still doing that). If you will drop this and rescind the accusations, terrific. If you're not willing to do that, there aremultipleforums through which we could put this matter to rest; just don't keep libeling me on my talk page. -- tariqabjotu 19:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The second is Dashes. About Aminz, since he was clearly being much worse than me and also had 3 reverts, you were unfair in blocking me and not him. Also libel is a false accusation, and I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the facts. Arrow740 19:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out the facts So, this whole conversation is about reminding me who I have and have not blocked over the past few days? C'mon... I'm not a moron; you're building a case suggesting I'm biased toward Muslims. You've been more direct about it at times than others, but that's precisely what you're doing. -- tariqabjotu 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't if an administrator is biased, actually, but whether said bias is damaging the project. I see no reason to believe that either Blnguyen or Tariqabjotu is doing that.Proabivouac 18:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, Lovegroup is banned user His excellency. B1Nguyen said so on the talk page. Please do not allow this extremely disruptive user who has had a dozen socks active in the last week to influence the project further. Arrow740 19:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose if you're unwilling to even let me strikethru his comments [5] then that's the end of that. Arrow740 00:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to put all this behind me and move on. I hope you would like to do so as well. Happy Independence Day. Arrow740 22:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing for me to put behind me; I have nothing against you and have always maintained that. What you see as bias is just a mere coincidence of events (in the same way that Blnguyen's recent actions have been mere coincidence and are not motivated by bias against Muslims). If by putting all this behind you, you mean you will rescind the accusations of bias, then that would be great. However, if you're not going to do that, I have little choice but to defend myself against them when necessary. But happy Independence Day to you too anyway. -- tariqabjotu 23:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, Blnguyen's actions are different because he is actually acting according to policies - if you want to keep bringing this up I will continue as well. I haven't accused you of bias outright. I've just objected to your recent behavior, but I'm willing to put it aside and see how things proceed in the future. Arrow740 23:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sigh... both I and Blnguyen are acting according to policies. See my post (on my talk page) from 17:23, July 4 (UTC) again. Appearances of impropriety and bias on both fronts are merely coincidental. -- tariqabjotu 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
For him there is no appearance of impropriety as he blocked users with 4 reverts. Your situation is the opposite. Arrow740 02:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Arrow740, if you can accept that Tariqabjotu 1) would block the sockpuppet of a banned editor if he knew that's what it was and 2) would not block an established editor (or any non-banned editor) for reverting a banned editor, if he knew that's what it was - and i don't think anyone would dispute this - then the problem boils down not to bias, but to how we are dealing with sockpuppets - that is, not just ineffectually, but counterproductively.
For example, above there is a thread in which the sockpuppeteer appears to have successfully incited Tariqabjotu against Blnguyen, at least partially on the basis of a CU-confirmed lie ("nor am I any editor among these logs.") The real problem here is that the statements of established editors (e.g. sock id's) are ignored while the testimony of transparent socks is taken at face value.
The naivite is on display nowhere more strongly than when Tariqabjotu unblocked User:Lovegroup with the summary, "probably an experienced user wishing to remain anonymous." Also see the progressive blocks of User:Habibz who was likewise already accused of the same thing: if that wasn't excessive caution then, it is now.
So I propose a way forward: Arrow740, apologize to Tariqabotu for assuming and accusing him of religious bias - it's unnecessary, it's inappropriate and it poisons the atmosphere while accomplishing nothing. Tariqabjotu, face it, you blew it (as we all do from time to time) - apologize to Arrow740 for having blocked him, and from now on, give your colleagues a little credit: our skepticism has proven a more reliable guide than your own caution. Finally, let us keep this talk page and others free of further attempts to manipulate us into conflict by "experienced user[s] wishing to remain anonymous."Proabivouac 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Your first paragraph is on-target. The problem is that there was little evidence that the particular editor was HE. The editor was disruptive to the Islam article, but frankly that might easily describe a lot of religiously-zealous people who rarely edit. Reverting sockpuppets is okay, but reverting new editors learning the ropes is not (even though some may want to think it's okay). At that point in the time, it was inconclusive which it was. Yes, you and Arrow had hunches, but, as I said earlier, hunches with questionable can, and often are, wrong. No one (not on July 1 or since then) filed a RfCU. No one went to ANI, raising concerns about this particular editor. I can remember an article that faced a similar flurry of disruption (albeit to a lesser degree) when it made it to the Main Page (Jerusalem, from May 23). Instead of incessantly reverting every passer-by that decided to contest Jerusalem's status as the capital of Israel, I brought the matter up at ANI, suggesting that those reverting such edits not be subject to the 3RR. It did not take much time for a quick consensus to arise. But that route was not taken... So in the course of the twenty-four hours, there was blocking, protecting the article, and, eventually, Moreschi (talk·contribs) putting his foot down are reverting to the pre-FA version. There's no one way to eat a Reese's and there's no one way to address a unique situation like this. All three methods were permissible at varying degrees.
Your second paragraph, however, is not correct. The sockpuppet's comment on my talk page did not incite me to comment on Blnyugen's talk page; I was in the process of writing my comment on Blnyugen's talk page at the time of HE's comment. I didn't even look at HE's comment until I finished writing my comment, as I didn't want to interrupt writing what I was writing to address that orange bar. So, there's really nothing more to say about that.
The last sentence of your third paragraph is the only thing I agree with there. Yes, it was not excessive caution then. And yes, it's excessive caution now. But the time to act was then, not now; it's so easy for you to analyze the situation now knowing who was or was not a sockpuppet. Lovegroup and Lovegroup5 did not go into articles to cause disruption; the users merely commented on my talk page, so there was no reason to raise a ruckus at that point (remember there are legitimite uses of sockpuppets and we do have to remember to assume good faith). From this vantage point, I'm sure we all agree what should have been done; Arrow not blocked, Agoras blocked indefinitely, Lovegroup blocked indefinitely, Lovegroup5 blocked indefinitely, Dashes blocked indefinitely. But it's silly to condemn for what I did not know.
Now your last paragraph. I maintain I have nothing for which to apologize; I have made mistakes based on misreading something or some other similar mishap, but that is not the case here. My stance on this has remained the same throughout. There was no pro-Muslim bias. The block was reasonable given the information at the time. I wouldn't block someone who was reverting a user that was clearly a sockpuppet beyond a reasonable doubt (as in not where one says perhaps this is not the case). This has never changed. I don't care if Arrow believes any one of those points is false or wrong or whatever. It's not a big deal. So essentially, Arrow can do whatever he wants – apologize or harbor ill will toward me or whatever else. As long as it does not interfere with what I'm on Wikipedia to do, I don't care. The best way to end this was to just not comment on it anymore. That's what I planned to do until you brought this here. I appreciate the attempt, but I don't feel there's anything else to do. And I'm not sure how anything after "and from now on" and your mocking me was supposed to do any good. -- tariqabjotu 00:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The flags are supposed to be the successor to my interfaith theme of my userpage. The flags are largely arbitrary, although the flags of Israel and Egypt are intentional. -- tariqabjotu 04:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I think you may help us resolve the conflict in that article in which i had been banned previoulsy..Another administrator, FayssalF - Wiki me up® made certain edits, but the User Nikosilver again showed up and put the article again in its old format.. he has been pushing his greek nationalist POV in this or any other Turkish related article for a quite while..A Kurdish User said in the discussion page, or at least implied that, he doesnt have problem with my editings..Can you come and present some ideas about the discussion in there? --laertes d 20:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, but i was asking your help in order to prevent relentless POV pushing of Nikosilver not to confirm his POV without even reading what has been said..He reverted a third party administrator opinion to his own version and you "protected" this version..
And If you check an eye to discussion page you will notice that, let alone five days, in a thousand year nothing is going to change with Nikosilver..--laertes d 21:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
First, resorting to uncivilpersonal attacks by referring to people by their nationality is never a good starting point for resolving a dispute on the article. Not long after you got off your block, you proceeded to continue partaking in edit-warring – the same activity you were blocked for. You're on thin ice... -- tariqabjotu 22:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Tariq. I was about to post the following ([ec]):
Numerous PA's aside (here too), I made many irrelevant improvements [6][7][8] and added sourced content to the edits of Fayssal which was deleted on wrong assumptions [9][10] (keeping many elements of his edit and especially the title of the section and explaining to him why in the talkpage [11] ), and was bluntly and wholly reverted by Laertes [12] without being addressed in the talkpage [13] (his post above my reply to Fayssal). NikoSilver 22:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been insulted by Laertes once too many, [14][15][16][17], despite that he has been previously warned multiple times, [18][19][20][21] and blocked twice for the same reason,[22] and I'm not taking it any more. NikoSilver 22:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, your 48h 3RR block to Laertes was probably a little short, since it was his fifth for edit warring, while he had previously been blocked for three days. That's ancient history, now, of course... NikoSilver 22:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think all revert warrers (including NikoSilver) is on thin ice. Revert warring is disruptive. WP:3rr is not a 3-revert license either. -- Catchi? 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
What revert warring? I'm personally very rarely exceeding 2RR for months, and have a clean block log [23] to prove it, which is especially difficult if you do not constantly rename to clear it out (ahem [24][25]), and if you are constantly dealing with controversial articles, having even managed to promote them to FA status... [26] So yes, I've been on thin ice for ages... NikoSilver 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The thing that i dont understand is, my earlier, sole edit was to change the name of the section from "claims of genocide" to "claims of forced assimilation"[[27]], the reasons of which i explained in the talk page [[28]]..And i even asked Ozgur, a kurd formerly from Turkey who has no such attitude to defend turkey.. [[29]] He said basically it is okay for him if it is named as forced assimilation...
it is Nikosilver himself continuing his POV pushing practices that he has been pursuing in every turkish related article..--laertes d 22:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh! will you ever stop the personal attacks? And your sole edit was after your complete revert (diff above), and the guy here is obviously bored to exhaustion reading our petty dispute! NikoSilver 22:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It depends on what one understands from "personal attack", i think i dont insult you in any way but blunty saying who you are, a greek nationalist, and what are you doing, pushing you POV in turkish related articles, and manipulate things when you get stuck..Who asked you about your bloq or how many edits have you done in wikipedia or what you are doing for the last two months.. We are talking baout the current article, you keep changing the subject, bring unrelated issues, and manipulate things in order to get an upper hand in the discussion..is it an insult?, no.--laertes d 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what I read here, to where I and others have referred you multiple times. You are incorrigible and you are insulting me repeatedly even on an admin's talkpage. NikoSilver 23:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
From your inability to reply, it seems who is actually the "incorrigible" one..Btw, these are not considered personal attack by your highly elevated standarts?--laertes d 23:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack"WP:NPA
Since you keep accusing me of making personal attacks continuosly, then i think somebody should block you according to the same place..--laertes d 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
This diff puts them in yellow. NikoSilver 10:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Tariq, Laertes has requested his block to be reviewed, but without using the {{unblock}} template (as was instructed). I have advised him with simple instructions in his talkpage. Maybe someone could review it either-way? NikoSilver 10:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Protect NI infobox template
Tariqabjotu,
You unlocked Template:Northern_Ireland_infobox on request from a user. However, the template as created so as to be locked while allowing the rest of the NI page to be edited - usually the full page is locked due to edit wars over the flag in the info box. See the entirety of Talk:Northern_Ireland where this edit war was discussed - in fact, its pretty much the only thing that's discussed. The thought of "resolving" the problem in this way is discussed here. Without a lock an edit war will simply ensue again. --sony-youthpléigh 18:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It was obvious that meatpuppets or sockpuppets are being used to disrupt the template. I've added semi-protection and blocked the puppets in an attempt to thwart that, but if established users continue to be a problem then, yes, I (or someone else) will raise it to full protection. -- tariqabjotu 21:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tariqabjotu, I'm not sure that your protection of that template is all that useful. When I first separated the infobox out of the main article (Northern Ireland) as a single-transclusion template, the intent was to keep the main article unprotected for other non-infobox related edits, while the dispute on the infobox played out. However, since the main article is currently unprotected, editors are able to create their own versions of the infobox and put it in the main article, completely bypassing the protected template. This has already happened. My attempt at dispute resolution was a failure. I think the proper course of action is to reverse my work and put the infobox code back inline into the main article and protect that instead. Thanks, Andrwsc 21:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
That might work. Perhaps this should be presented to WP:ANI for more feedback, however. Padraig3uk (talk·contribs) appears to have been disruptive with flags in a lot of places. -- tariqabjotu 22:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Can I comment on this, firstly Andrwsc, you did created a seperate template to allow the Northern Ireland article to be unprotected, something I agreed with, and also something I did myself in the past if you care to check through the edit history over the past 6 months, on that occassion the template was nominated for deletion by another editor involved in the dispute on the flag issue.
The template you created this time you didn't protect when you created it, dispite being told it would need protection to prevent an edit war, you then allowed one editor to reinsert the flag, and carry out 7 reverts in a 48hr period, before you protected the template and give that editor a warning about edit warring dispite the fact they had broken 3RR and should have been blocked from editing, yet you failed to revert the template back to it original state.
There are a small group of editors trying to use WP as a soapbox to promote a particular political POV on Northern Ireland the flag issue is only part of that they are also pushing the notion that all Northern Ireland people are Northern Irish as a ethic group or nationality, this is completely false as people in Northern Ireland can either regard themselves as British, Irish or with duel British/Irish nationality, Northern Irish is a Unionist creation.
I believe that WP should present the facts of the political situation in Northern Ireland, in this the Official Flag is the Union Flag, not the Ulster Banner. I also have no objection to the use of the Ulster banner in its proper context, when dealing with the period of 1921-72, I even used the Ulster Banner in this Template:Politics of Northern Ireland 1921-72 template I created to deal with the government and elections of that period, nor do I object to its use when dealing with sports people that identify with that flag or play in the commonwealth games under that flag. But I do object with their attempts to protray the Ulster Banner as representing Northern Ireland and its government today or since 1972.--padraig3uk 02:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I would second that, Padraig has done more than most to resolve this issue, I would assert that it is the actions of Astrotrain (talk·contribs) that we need to be looking at as I believe the he creates the problems regarding this issue on many pages. --Vintagekits 02:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A second template in my opinion is very necessary and has been discussed for some time on the Northern Ireland talkpage - I again see this as a great effort on his behalf to resolve this issue. --Vintagekits 02:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see where that was discussed. -- tariqabjotu 02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
That thread has nothing to do with this template. -- tariqabjotu 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Look on the Talkpage of the Northern Ireland article and the archives of that as well, also on Andrwsc talk page, I ask him before I created the template to revert the edits made by User:Setanta747 who was edit warring and made 7RR in a 48hrs period, back to the version he first created to enable the main Northern Ireland article to be un-protected, when he refused to do this I ask him if I created a new template to restore the template would he protect that, he didn't respond to my question, therefore I went ahead and did it as for WP:Bold. So my creation of the second template wasn't to avoid protection, but to restore the original template that the creating admin should have protected in the first place.--padraig3uk 03:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
(removing indent) Setanta747 (talk·contribs) did not violate the 3RR because he was reverting sock- and meatpuppets. The template was obviously a bad idea and an attempt to circumvent the protection; Andrwsc not responding to your comment within thirty-six minutes is no excuse for seeing that as acceptable. -- tariqabjotu 03:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If Andrwsc had protected the template in the first place then Setanta747 (talk·contribs) would not have been able to edit war on the template, we did tell Andrwsc that a edit war would start if it wasn't protected, as for Setanta747 (talk·contribs) reverts he wasn't reverting socks and meatpuppets he was edit warring against editors trying to stop him altering the template against the consensus agreed prior the current debate.--padraig3uk 04:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Setanta747 (talk·contribs) was clearly reverting sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets, as the history shows. Whether (s)he was reverting against consensus (and I'm skeptical there was one) is irrelevant here. -- tariqabjotu 04:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, can you block this editor User:86.158.67.97 he is vandalising user pages and articles, he has been warned twice.--padraig3uk 23:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a heads up, Tariqabjou, 3RR includes reverting supposed sock/meat puppets. the only exceptions include BANNED users (not blocked users) and obvious vandalism. Threw me for a loop first time I saw it myself. SirFozzie 01:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverting actions made by blocked users evading their blocks do not count toward the 3RR, as stated in the fourth exception. About sock- and meatpuppets... yeah, that's not really stated directly. -- tariqabjotu 04:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Watchlists
Salam. There are some watchlists in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam#Task forces. Can you please pay attention to them to prevent vandalism, 3rr and other WP sins. Thanks a lot.--Sa.vakilian(t-c) 06:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
ITN image size
I've seen "100x100px" used at TFA, ITN and DYK, so I made this change based on a past precedent. Anyway, I think the height restrictions are necessary. From my personal experiences at ITN and DYK, some images are a bit extreme in the vertical or horizontal direction, and the restrictions for both dimensions correct this mistake. However, I'm sure that it's probably best not to use 100x100px when dealing with images such as paintings and wide-angle pictures. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My RFA
I replied to your oppose vote, most of the times I "left" since I gained my adminship was because of unexpected circumstances. Seriously this isn't fair. Jarandawat's sup 21:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not convinced. -- tariqabjotu 06:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
In the news
Basically because it was incorrect, and to correct it would have made the sentence too complicated. Slacspeak up! 06:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
OTRS volunteering
Hello Tariqabjotu,
Thanks for volunteering to Wikimedia OTRS team.
Unfortunately, we have to decline your offer of help for the moment.
Volunteering for OTRS is a very different endeavor than participating in the Wikimedia projects as a user or even an administrator. Considering the nature of the work, requires that the OTRS sysops be familiar with you and your work on Wikimedia projects before accepting you as a volunteer. OTRS volunteers deal with difficult, sensitive, and at times hostile messages.
Being an OTRS volunteer requires courtesy, patience, skills at resolving disputes, friendliness even in the face of hostility, sensitivity to the needs of those outside Wikimedia, and extraordinary discretion. We are not certain for the moment you have all these necessary skills, so we encourage you to develop them while editing your project. We will be happy to reconsider your application in the future.
Thanks again for your help. guillom 13:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, allow even me (as a university professor) to encourage you to develop "the necessary skills"........only TOTALLY impartial admin can be OTRS volunteers.--Brunodam 00:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Current-ie1.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Current-ie1.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image (Image:Current-ie2.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Current-ie2.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I hope everything is going well with you. As you mentioned edit-warring is not good(which I agree), but I'd like to learn how I should continue in say the following situation:
On Banu Qurayza: Arrow and Beit Or write that:[Muslims] "accused the tribe of treachery for not aiding the Muslims during the Battle of the Trench."
I believe the reason mentioned is incorrect and would like to write "the tribe was charged with treachery during the Battle of the Trench" (Muslims believed Jews had broken their pact and sided with enemy)
1. I have asked Arrow to source his statement. He hasn't provided any.
2. Arrow accuses me of misrepresentation of sources. Here is what the source (published by Routledge press) says:"The most significant clash came during the Battle of the Ditch, when the Jewish clan of Banu Qurayza collaborated with the Quraysh in an attempt to break the siege... This open act of treachery was a clear violation not only of the Pact of Medina"- I summerized it as "the tribe was charged with treachery during the Battle of the Trench". I can not see any misrepresentation.
3. Please follow our conversation on the topic [[31]] (edits starting from 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC))- I hardly can make any sense of what he says and I can't see anything would come out of discussion. If you can clarify what "misrepresentation" he means, that would be great.
4. He reverts me on the page.
5. I have filed several Page:RfC's before but in most cases nobody responds to them.
Would you please let me know how is best to proceed in this case. Thanks --Aminz 08:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
P.S. more information can be found here [32] or Banu Qurayza article. --Aminz 08:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I have also asked User:Blnguyen and User:Tom harrison to advice me of how a "good wikipedian" should proceed in a case like this. --Aminz 08:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding 1, when you tagged that line (which I thought was supported by the body), I removed it, so don't bring it up. Regarding 2, there's nothing about a charge there, and you haven't even said why we should include this source (or who he is). There is nothing in the body about a charge of treachery either, so you are shoving a POV into the intro without support in the body, a violation of WP:LEAD. Arrow740 08:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding 1, I don't understand you. Can someone please clarify Arrow's last edit to the article [33] and his comment here.
Regarding 2, the source says: "The most significant clash came during the Battle of the Ditch, when the Jewish clan of Banu Qurayza collaborated with the Quraysh in an attempt to break the siege... This open act of treachery was a clear violation not only of the Pact of Medina".
Again, please someone explain to me what misrepresentation Arrow is refering to. --Aminz 08:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I was referring to [34] this. Beit Or put it back in, and when you undid his edit, I did put that back in, yes. I should have reverted back to my version instead of his. The only thing the Banu Qurayza did was not fight with the Muslims, and that's the only "treachery" that the article refers to. It is most accurate to not have mention of any charge. I'll remove that again. Arrow740 09:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I didn't undid Beit Or's edit here [35] (again your comment is not comprehensible to me) 2. Please specify the misrepresentation you are talking about. 3. Are you claiming there are sources saying Muslims didn't charge the Banu Qurayza with treachery? (e.g. that Muslims said that the Qurayza were innocent and didn't break their pact)???? 4. How is it that mentioning the reason for what happened to Qurayza is against WP:LEAD? --Aminz 10:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
And one more time, please source "The only thing the Banu Qurayza did was not fight with the Muslims". --Aminz 10:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I am asking for advice from some admins about how to proceed in such frustrating situations. Please take a look at [36] (edits starting from 22:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC). I really want to know how one should proceed when one party can not make any sense of what the other person is saying (I still don't know Arrow's point regarding my "misreprentation" of the source). Arrow and Beit Or have reverted me 3 times on addition "Muslims charged Qurayza with treachery". I want to know what their point really is. --Aminz 10:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your suspect source does not mention Muhammad charging the Banu Qurayza with treachery. The author is charging them himself; he states the "treachery" as a fact. He does not mention Muhammad making a charge of treachery. As our sources in the article indicate, the issue of the Constitution is murky. It is best to take a circumspect approach, and not to shove POV's in either way. You know very well that I could put in POV's that would reflect my own thoughts about the massacre and enslavement, but I haven't done that. I suggest you take a similar approach to writing this encyclopedia. Arrow740 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Without commenting on the specifics of this case, I'll try to give some advice as Aminz asked me to. It reflects my currently-pessimistic outlook for the future of the project. We have several policies, like neutrality, verifiability, no personal attacks, etc. But we only really enforce the three-revert rule. Virtually all other policies are up to the editors on the page to interpret. For example, is something original research? The editors on the page will decide. If they say it is not original research, there is not much to be done. Is a source reliable? Same thing. Mediation is not binding; Requests for comment are mostly ignored; arbcom does not accept content disputes. There is no neutral review body who will decide. Even if there is no formal vote, there is a de facto vote (weighted by who has the most free time) as people edit. Removing uncited original research will get you blocked for 3rr as quickly as anything else. If you are in the minority on a page, about all you can do is do something else while you wait for the mix of editors to change. There are other places to read and write, other encyclopedia projects with different rules, and other ways to contribute. Tom HarrisonTalk 13:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to echo Proabivouac's sentiment that this should be discussed at Talk:Banu Qurayza, but I'll field (part of) the question anyway. The source does not say that the Muslims charged anyone with anything. The author says it was an "open act of treachery", but that is merely his opinion (no matter how resolute he is in his position). It's like finding a source saying the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is an open violation of the Geneva Conventions even though no one has been charged with that. -- tariqabjotu 14:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Tariqabjotu, is this really what the source says? In fact, does it make sense at all that somebody punishes someone else without charging the other person with a crime? If someone closes the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, he has to do it for a reason. And the battle of Ditch was a an active war. Now, the fact we are talking about is as clear as 2+2=4. Arrow is well aware of the content of the Banu Qurayza article and other places that mention the same point say "Muhammad and the Jews" section on Muhammad article where we had a dispute and there Esposito and Peters said the same thing. A more direct quote from the same section of Muhammad article? John Esposito says: "After the Battle of Ditch in 627, the Jews of the Banu Qurayza were denounced as traitors who had consorted with the Meccans."
Now, Arrow is trying to say that according to Muhammad, the only sin of Qurayza was that they didn't help Muslims. Where is his source? If he hasn't a source, why he repeats it over and over again? --Aminz 19:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you leave Tariqabjotu alone? BeitOr 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
ANI board comment
not to nitpick, but when you spell out ED, well it's a lot easier for people to go there (find it). Not saying that if someone wanted to find it otherwise that they couldn't, just that it makes it really easy (i think I have seen it referenced at least 50 times over the last month, but didn't care enough to google it until I saw it spelled out today). I was just thinking you might want to remove the comment because it seems to compound the problem Will has with it. R. Baley 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think that's an issue, but he can remove the comment if he wants. -- tariqabjotu 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Israel thread
In my most recent edit that I made which you undid, I was wrong. Just thought I should acknowledge that. Smaug 16:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Prejudiced comments left on my talk page
Hello sir, thanks in advance for reading this. I have already alerted the administrator's noticeboard but I felt I should alert you as well, as I am having repeated incivility issues with a user I believe you are familiar with. User:Klaksonn made a large edit to the article on Ali. I didn't have a problem with the edit per se, but it was large and he did not discuss it on the talk page first, so I reverted it. He left this comment on my talk page in response. Basically saying that because I am Salafi (I am, though I don't know how he knows that) I cannot edit the article. Then he called me a Nasibi, which is a religious slur. He also insulted me again in the edit summary of his revert of my revert. I decided to revert it one more time and reason with him, asking him to be civil and explain his edits on the talk page for Ali. He did go to the talk page, but instead of explaining his edit he insulted me again and told me I am not allowed to edit. I tried one last time to reason with him but am backing off for now, because he just seems to be getting further enflamed.
Do you think you could have a few words with him? I know that Netscape has encountered this user before as well but he appears to be busy in real life. Any help you could give me would be much appreciated. MezzoMezzo 14:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
